The Madhya Pradesh High Court has permitted an RTI applicant to inspect the relevant records before identifying the specific documents whose copies he seeks, taking note of the substantial delay of nearly 14 years since the appellate authority's order of 2012. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 446]
Modifying the earlier order of the Single Judge, the division bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain directed:
"Considering the time elapsed between the order passed in the year 2012 and the impugned order of learned Single Judge, the Court deems it fit to modify the order of learned Singe Judge to the extent that the application specifying the documents, the copies of which are required by the respondent (appellant herein), however, such documents be specified by the appellant after taking inspection of the record. For the aforesaid, it is open for the appellant to approach the Public Information Officer with an application for inspection and based on such inspection, an application for supply of the documents specified therein may be filed".
The appellant, a social activist, challenged an order of August 17, 2026, passed by the Single Judge Bench in WP 18347 of 2015. The Single Judge had set aside the order of the State Information Commissioner and the First Appellate Authority concerning the appellant's request for information under the RTI Act.
The appellant had sought certain documents, including 'up-to-date monthly reports submitted by/on behalf of the Governor to the Central Government regarding the functioning/political status of the State Government, along with internal communications sent by the Central Government to the Office of the Governor'.
The State contended that the application did not clearly identify the specific documents whose copies were being sought. Therefore, the State argued that in the absence of such details, the appellate authority could not have passed an order directing disclosure.
In the August 17 order, the Single Judge had observed that the applicant failed to mention specific documents along with respective details. Therefore, the court granted liberty to the applicant to submit a fresh application specifying the documents required.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed before the Division Bench seeking its modification and a direction to the authorities to provide information within the stipulated time period. With the aforementioned directions, the court disposed of the writ appeal.
For Appellant: Advocates Rajesh Kumar Chand and Rohit Nanepag
For State: Deputy Advocate General Vivek Sharma